Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
M & S STEEL COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner,v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 353 F.2d 80
November 16, 1965
W. M. Beck, Sr., Beck & Beck, Fort Payne, Ala., for petitioner.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Michael R. Brown, Atty., N.L.R.B., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and RIVES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this case, M & S Steel Company, Incorporated filed its petition to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., (§ 10(f) of the Act). In answer the Board has requested enforcement of its order.
The Board concluded that the company violated § 8(a) (1) of the Act by (1) promulgating a rule which prohibited its employees from distributing union literature on their own time in non-working areas of the plant; and (2) interrogating employee Tommie Williams concerning his protected activities in such fashion as to constitute interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of the Act. The Board also found that the company violated § 8(a) (1), (3) and (4) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging Williams because of his union activities and his resort to the Board for assistance.
It is our conclusion that the record as a whole amply supports the findings and conclusions of the Board, and that the Board's order is valid and proper. See Republic Aviation Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 324 U.S. 793, 803, n. 10, 65 S.Ct. 982, 988, 89 L.Ed. 1372, 1379; N. L. R. B. v. Walton Mfg. Co. (5 Cir.) 289 F.2d 177, 180; N. L. R. B. v. Griggs Equipment (5 Cir.) 307 F.2d 275, 278; Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Div., etc. v. N. L. R. B. (5 Cir.) 310 F.2d 676, 679; N. L. R. B. v. Ewell Engineering & Contracting Co. (5 Cir.) 315 F.2d 375. Accordingly, the petition to review is denied, and the Board's order is enforced.